Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mister Rog]

I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.

They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents

Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.

IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.

So, in that case Cameron should have obtained the agreement and consent of parliament that the result would be abided by, before the referendum was held ? That would have been interesting 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

There is no corruption within the British legal system? Seriously ? To be honest, someone appointed by Blair would probably have already sold their soul to him in order for him to appoint them in the first place.
As for parliament having the final say - they decided, by a large majority, to give the people the right to take this ecision. The people have taken their decision, and that should be the end of the matter.
What if parliament votes not to invoke article 50 ? What happens then ?
What if parliament votes against the deal the Govt. strike with the EU ? What happens then ?
If the EU know that parliament will get a vot on its deal, then it will give a terrible deal, so it gets voted down, and we end up locked in indefinitely.
This is all about the remoaners (a percentage of the remainers) being unwilling to accept the result and trying thwart it, ideally causing a second referendum.
Its standard EU practice to compel the people to vote again until they get "the right result". Its no more democratic than the USSR was.
I preidict that if anything goes seriously wrong with Brexit, millions of people will march on London,and the politicians will crap themselves and do what they were told to do in June. 

[STEMO]

We all know that the judges decision was on a point of law, but.....why did this woman go to law in the first place? I'm pretty sure it wasn't to ensure that the law was adhered to, it was more a clutching at straws exercise to try and throw a spanner in the works.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Her and those behind her providing the money. 

[ronnyd]

I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but, I said to SWMBO on the day after the vote, that voting to leave (which we both did) was one thing but actually being allowed to leave by the establishment was another. Watch this space for another massive stitch-up.

[Viral_Jim]

I was, and remain, a "remoaner"  . But as Lord Opti, I respect the vote and don't want another Referendum. However, the number of different scenarios bandied about for what Brexit looks like, or rather could look like raises a valid constitutional point. Various forms of Brexit will alter/strip away people's fundamental rights (those given but the European Laws and the ultimate right of appeal to the ECHR). In principle, I am not comfortable with any government having the executive power to strip away citizens' rights without involving the mechanism of parliament.

Yes, MP's voted to give the people a choice but the referendum question was worded so vaguely that no one took a vote on what rights should be gained or lost. An unelected head of government should not be able to unilaterally decide which rights we get to lose.

In short, I agree that parliament should be involved, but that the will of the people be respected.

To me the crux of the issue is that the government (the same government that we have now) sent a written statement to every household in the land saying that "The Government will implement the decision". I see that as a contract between the people and the government. Furthermore, that statement unambiguously implied that the referendum was not "advisory".

True, but someone also wrote an extra £350m/week for the NHS down the side of a bus and used it to persuade voters. There is no contract between people and politicians. They lie we choos to swallow it, or not.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

You accept the result, therefore you aren't a remoaner. 
No-one ever said the NHS would receive an extra £350 million per week. It was implied yes, but not stated. It said the saving could be used for the NHS.
Cameron, Osborne and everyone else involved on both sides, said on TV that voting to leave would mean we left the single market, and all the other aspects of the EU.There was no doubt whatsoever. And as mentioned, we all had it in writing, that the result would be implemented.
We may not have a contract with the state, but in reality, the only power the state has is the power that we have lent it. It has no right to ignore our instructions. If that does happen, then democracy in the UK is dead.

[LC0112G]

I think you're all missing the point. The judges in the High/Supreme court aren't in the least bit influenced by public (or political) opinion and nor should they be. Their job is to rule on matters of law.

They have been asked the question "In Law, is it Parliament or The Government that has the right to invoke Art50?" They have decided that under the "1972 European Communities Act" that Parliament has to take the decision. You can read the act and decide for yourself if this interpretation is correct here : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents

Parliament writes the laws, so if the laws don't do what the Government want than it ain't the Judges fault - the politicians should have got the laws right in place first.

IMV the Judges have got this one right - Parliament should have the last say on virtually everything. However, MP's can be in no doubt that a majority voted for Brexit, and if they vote against the will of their constituents then they will probably pay the price at the next general election.

So, in that case Cameron should have obtained the agreement and consent of parliament that the result would be abided by, before the referendum was held ? That would have been interesting 

In a word - Yes.

There is no corruption within the British legal system? Seriously ? To be honest, someone appointed by Blair would probably have already sold their soul to him in order for him to appoint them in the first place.

Your point may hold some water if you can show that the Judges have made an error in law. So where do you think they have made such an error?

As for parliament having the final say - they decided, by a large majority, to give the people the right to take this ecision. The people have taken their decision, and that should be the end of the matter.

If the law says that parliament has a final say, then it doesn't really matter what has happened so far. Or are you saying that the Government should be allowed to act illegally "just this once"?

What if parliament votes not to invoke article 50 ? What happens then ?

I guess that any MP's who vote against what the majority of their constituents want will lose their seat at the next general election in 2020.

What if parliament votes against the deal the Govt. strike with the EU ? What happens then ?
If the EU know that parliament will get a vot on its deal, then it will give a terrible deal, so it gets voted down, and we end up locked in indefinitely.

The EU ain't gonna enter into  talks until/unless we invoke Art50. Once we've invoked it, then it's probably a one way trip to Brexit (I know opinions differ on whether Art50 is reversible once invoked). Any vote in parliament on the terms will likely be a "do you accept what's been negotiated, or do you want Hard Brexit/WTO terms".  I doubt that we'll be able to go back a second time to try and sweeten the deal.

This is all about the remoaners (a percentage of the remainers) being unwilling to accept the result and trying thwart it, ideally causing a second referendum.
Its standard EU practice to compel the people to vote again until they get "the right result". Its no more democratic than the USSR was.
I preidict that if anything goes seriously wrong with Brexit, millions of people will march on London,and the politicians will crap themselves and do what they were told to do in June. 

I sort of agree, but it's pointless accusing the Judges of being complicit in this. They aren't - they're making the Govt obey the existing law.

[LC0112G]

We all know that the judges decision was on a point of law, but.....why did this woman go to law in the first place? I'm pretty sure it wasn't to ensure that the law was adhered to, it was more a clutching at straws exercise to try and throw a spanner in the works.

Why does it matter? The Law is the law. No-one, especially the Government should be allowed to act outside the law. That way lies anarchy.

[Viral_Jim]

No-one ever said the NHS would receive an extra £350 million per week. It was implied yes, but not stated. It said the saving could be used for the NHS.

True. But even the figure itself seems like bunk by a lot of accounts. Particularly if the UK suffers (another) credit rating downgrade which further increases our immense borrowing costs.

I agree that the will Of the people should not be ignored, but if you go down the route of allowing our functioning head of state to take away peoples' rights without deferral to parliament, it would not be respectful of our rule of law.

The decision of the referendum needs to be the outcome, but the correct process is vitally important in a country where every legal decision sets a precedent.

[LC0112G]

I was, and remain, a "remoaner"  . But as Lord Opti, I respect the vote and don't want another Referendum. However, the number of different scenarios bandied about for what Brexit looks like, or rather could look like raises a valid constitutional point. Various forms of Brexit will alter/strip away people's fundamental rights (those given but the European Laws and the ultimate right of appeal to the ECHR). In principle, I am not comfortable with any government having the executive power to strip away citizens' rights without involving the mechanism of parliament.

Yes, MP's voted to give the people a choice but the referendum question was worded so vaguely that no one took a vote on what rights should be gained or lost. An unelected head of government should not be able to unilaterally decide which rights we get to lose.

No. The ECHR is not an EU institution. If/when the UK leaves the EU we will still be full members of the ECHR. Although many Brexit supporters would like us to leave the ECHR too that's not on the current adjenda.

[Varche]

If voting made any difference , they wouldnt let us do it.  Mark Twain

Just an observation but if an MPs constituents voted by majority for something (eg Brexit) surely there job is to represent that and not their party line?

Jimmy. Credit downgrade? Well just another tool in the establishments armoury to make us realise the error of the out vote. Pound slipping is another. Today we had Carney spouting rubbish including actually saying he wouldnt be able to cut interest rates. Wake up Carney a cut would mean negative rates! First we had project fear and now it is and has been a new project. Fear2?

[Viral_Jim]

No. The ECHR is not an EU institution. If/when the UK leaves the EU we will still be full members of the ECHR. Although many Brexit supporters would like us to leave the ECHR too that's not on the current adjenda.

Apologies, you're right, I meant ECJ, but that is also not strictly correct as you (as a person) can't appeal to the ECJ, the national court has to refer it. I blame posting on a forum while shouting at Americans on Question Time 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

To my knowledge high court judges make rulings on their interpretation of the law ? If it was a simple matter of reading the relevant statute, we wouldn't actually need them. And surely, therein lies the opportunity for them to see things through their Blairite, pro EU goggles ?

[Rods2]

It is subject to appeal, so lets wait and see what is decided as the lower court ruling maybe upheld or reversed.

Tory MPs will be subject to a three line whip and most MP's have a sense of the importance of the democratic principles involved here and will not want to cause a constitutional crisis.

If Theresa calls an election she will have a massive 165 seat majority according to recent polls, where Labour has effectively imploded under Corbyn. A poll today put Theresa May 42%, don't knows 39% and Corbyn on 19% as who makes the best Prime Minister.

I'm sure remoaners, who won't accept the democratic result will be bed wetting with glee tonight, but I personally think it will make little difference to what happens. The majority of other EU countries can't wait to get us out, where we constantly put a brake on the creation of the EUSSR. If the EUSSR doesn't deliver solutions to creating growth and solving other major problems, which is unlikely, at that point it will fail along with the Euro. Very right wing and Left wing national governments like Le Pen will force the issue. The end result won't be pretty, politically or economically, but life will go on and it will sort itself out.

EU failure will hit all the world economically, especially the UK, but much less so if we are out than us staying in.